In Defense of a Friend

An anonymous-coward poster asked me why I elect to stand alone,
willing to display a forgiving attitude to those that the rest of the
community chooses to unswervingly, and unreasoningly, vilify,
accusing me of being gullible in an unfathomable degree. I,
therefore, took the time, and forum space, to spell out the reasoning
involved, pointing out the almost universal lack of direct knowledge
of the man versus my friendship with him (thereby pointing out that,
as opposed to the vast majority of the community, I am the one that
actually knows and maintains contact with the man), to say nothing of the irony of accusing someone who refuses to believe the party line of being gullible.

I will receive the most hatred for having, yet again, pointed out the
unreasoningly, unyieldingly, unswervingly, self-righteously and
totally uninformed hate-filled attitude that the vast majority of the
community holds toward a man that they have never had any direct
experience of, and therefore no real knowledge of, pointing out, as
well, that because I have an accurate view of my own failings and my
own sinfulness I can, because of them, see through his, to the man,
and call him friend.

So, what does that mean, really? It means that, because I am
forgiven, I can forgive.

They, on the other hand, cannot forgive because they are not
forgiven, and are not forgiven because they claim knowledge that they
do not have. “If you were blind you would not hold sin, but because
you claim to see, your guilt remains.”(John 9:41)

In my discourse I pointed out the various sites that claim to keep a
public, running dossier of the man and his activities and yet have
absolutely zero information that could even imaginably be mistaken as
neutral, much less positive, which, of course, calls into obvious and
glaring question the issue of their objectivity and therefore exposes
the equally obvious issue of their bias against the man, to say
nothing of the agenda that the vast majority of the community
absolutely refuses to cast an inquiring eye upon.

How is it, therefore, that I can so easily ignore all of the supposed
“evidence” publicly piled up against the man?

“When a person has—whether they knew it or not—already rejected
the Truth, by what means do they discern a lie?”

You see, the answer to the question of how I can so easily ignore
supposed “evidence” publicly piled up against the man is really
very simple: I know the man. I, therefore, have an accurate gauge
against which to measure the claims made against him, as well as to
measure against those making those claims.

They do not measure up to him.

They, therefore, hate me because I expose the Truth about them, and
make them face the Truth about themselves.